What is the function of consideration?

Restriction of non-gratuitous promises

So that you cannot accept offers
That I give so that you may give
That there are no formal restrictions
To restrict contract law
What is the consideration in a unilateral contract?
The benefit to the party making the promise
That you get money for your promise
That there is an exchange of goods
That there is some right or interest exchanged
That you get your dog back and some money as well
Which case defined what a valuable consideration is?
Stilk v Myrick
Williams v Roffey Bros
Currie v Misa (1875)
Barber v Fox (1682)
Re Wyvern Developments Ltd [1974]
Which of these statements is not true of consideration?
That it must move to the promisor
Needs not be adequate
Must be of some value
Must move from the promisee
Needs not to move to the promisor
What is the basis to the idea that consideration need not be adequate?
Free market economy
That promises can be gratuitous
That you want to sell something for whatever price you choose
That people should be prevented from having their goods sold below value
Closed market economy
Which case held that performance of a pre-existing duty is not good consideration?
Williams v Roffey Bros [1991]
Stilk v Myrick (1809)
Pao On v Lau Yin Long
Foakes v Beer (1884)
D & C Builders v Rees [1966]
Which case held that performance of a pre-existing duty can constitute good consideration if
there is some factual benefit to the promisor and there is no duress?
Williams v Roffey Bros [1991]
Stilk v Myrick (1809)
Collier v Wright
Hughes v Metropolitan Raiway
Tungsten v Tool Metal
Which case relates to the idea that there is no consideration if the benefit moves from a third
party?
Stilk v Myrick
Re Wyvern Developments Ltd [1974]
Collier v Wright
Barber v Fox (1682)
Williams v Roffey Bros
Which case relates to the idea that there is consideration even where the benefit is received by
a third party?
Re Wyvern Developments Ltd [1974]
Stilk v Myick
Barber v Fox (1682)
Currie v Misa (1875)
Williams v Roffey Bros
What is the general rule relating to past consideration?
Past consideration is not good consideration
Where there is no promise there is no consideration
Past consideration is valid where the act was done on request of the promisee
Past consideration is always good consideration
Past consideration is part of a contractual term
Which of these is not an exception to the doctrine of past consideration?
The act has been done on request of the promisor
The parties agreed that payment should follow
That murder can never constitute consideration
Payment would have been legally enforceable had it been promised in advance
The amount of money was not spoken about
What happens where there has been no performance at all?
One party keeps the money so there is good consideration
Performance should be rewound
Performance has been defective
Either party gives up the right to performance but is liberated herself so there is good
consideration
One party gives up their rights but the other does not so there is good consideration
What happens where there has been performance by one party?
Performance shall be rewound
Either party gives up the right to performance but is liberated themselves
One party keeps the money
The goods are defective
One party performs for nothing in return
What happens where goods are defective?
There must be separate consideration (accord and satisfaction)
There is a benefit to both the parties
There is no consideration
One party keeps the money so there is no consideration
Nothing
Which case relates to part payment of debt not being good consideration?
Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007]
Stilk v Myrick
Foakes v Beer (1884)
Barber v Fox (1682)
Re Wyvern Developments Ltd [1974]
What must there be for part payment of debt to be valid?
No consideration
A formal contract
A reasonable amount paid
Separate consideration
The contract involves pigs only
What is promissory estoppel?
One party is stopped from bringing a claim against the other party
Past consideration is not good consideration
There must be separate consideration
You are always able to bring to a claim
A promise to stop contracting with other people
Which of these is not a type of estoppel?
Working
Promissory
Proprietary
Representation
Convention
What is the leading case to do with promissory estoppel?
Rogers v Parish Ltd (1987)
Walker
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877)
Roland v Victor (1923)
City v Mudd
What are the requirements of promissory estoppel?
Clear promise not to enforce legal rights and reliance by the promisee
Insisting on strict legal rights
Suspending current rights
Giving new rights
Extinguishing rights and then enforcing them
Which case relates to the idea that promissory estoppel gives no new rights?
Combe v Combe [1951]
Harley v Hymans [1920]
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway
Tungsten v Tool Metal Manufacturing [1955]
Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007]
Which case relates to the idea that the buyer may claim damages if the buyer refuses to take
delivery after time for delivery has been extended?
Harley v Hymans [1920]
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd
Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007]
Combe v Combe [1951]
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway
Which case supports the idea that promissory estoppel does not extinguish rights?
Combe v Combe [1951]
Harley v Hymas [1920]
Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007]
Tungsten v Tool Metal Manufacturing [1955]
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd
What did Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007] hold?
That promissory estoppel may allow part payment of debt
That past consideration is never good consideration
That part payment of debt is not supported by consideration
That allowing part payment of debt would be inequitable
That the creditor has the right to ask for the rest of the money
Which of these is not a criticism of consideration?
Restriction to agreements the rationale of which is hard to understand
Leads to attempts to escape the straight jacket
Leads to inconsistencies
That it does not apply to electronic contracts
Which two cases may be cited as support for the idea that consideration can lead to
inconsistencies?
Williams v Roffey and Foakes v Beer
Currie v Misa and Stilk v Myrick
Williams v Roffey and Barber v Fox
Re Wyvern Developments Ltd and Lampleigh v Braithwait
Re Casey's Patent and Pao On v Lau Yin Long
What case did Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007] build on?
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947]
Hughes v Metropolitan Railways
Tungsten v Tool Metal Manufacturing [1955]
Foakes v Beer (1884)
D & C Builders v Rees [1966]
What does promissory estoppel do?
Gives new rights
Prevents rights from being enforced
Creates an equitable remedy
Allows new rights to be created
Suspends rights
With regards to promissory estoppel it is enforced where insisting on strict legal rights would
be... .
Equitable
Good consideration
Not allowed in law
A breach of the Sales of Goods Act 1979
Inequitable
When was the word estoppel first used?
1531
1200
1583
1057
1044

1)In Stilk v Myrrick the captain was able to go back on his promise to share the wages between the crew
because
 
A.They had taken advantage of the captain
B.They had an existing contractual duty to do what they had promised 
C.They had not done what they had promised 
D.They were unlucky

2)Which of the following are rules of consideration (tick all that are)
 
A.Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate  
B.Part payment of a debt is not valid  
C.Consideration must move from the promisor
D.An existing duty owed to a third party is not valid   
E.Consideration requires parties to consider the needs of the other party
F.Consideration must not be past  
G.Consideratiion must move from the promise
H.An existing public duty is not valid  
I.An existing contractual duty owed to the promisor is not valid

3)According to Pinnel's case part payment of a debt is not valid consideration for a promise to forego the
balance. Which of the following is NOT an exception to this rule.
 
A.Where the promisor requests payment to a different destination
B.Part payment by a third party
C.Promissory estoppel
D.Where the debtor offers to pay before the due date  
E.Where the promisor requests part payment with a chattel

4)In Chappel v Nestle the chocolate bar wrappers were considered

 
A.Inadequate value to constitute consideration
B.Not valid consideration as they would be simply thrown away
C.Valid consideration as the promotion would increase the sales of chocolate bars 
D.Insufficient consideration
5)Re McArdle concerned
 
A.A wife undertaking repairs to the family property 
B.A man seeking a pardon form the king
C.A ship where 2 crew members desserted 
D.A couple getting married

6)In Tweddle v Atkinson, the son was not entitled to the money from his father-in-law's estate because
 
A.His father provided the consideration so the consideration did not move from the promisee  
B.The consideration was not sufficient
C.There was no consideration
D. It was a domestic agreement 

7)A agrees to purchase B's mobile phone for 10p. Is this a valid contract?
 
A.Yes - 10p is sufficient it need not be adequate consideration  
B.Yes - but B can ask for more money if he wishes
C.No - the contract is unfair
D.No - the phone is worth more than 10p

8)A agrees to pick and pack cherries for B for £6 per hour at Cherrytree farms which also allows
customers to pick their own cherries. C purchases some pick your own cherries and pays A £1.00 to pick
and pack them for her. The contract between A &C is valid  
 
A.True 
B.False

9) Match the case to the legal principle

 
A.Re McArdle
Consideration must not be past
 
B. Pinnel's case
Part payment of a debt is not good consideration for a promise to forego the balance
 
C.Stilk v Myrrick
An existing contractual duty is not valid
 
D.Hartley v Ponsonby
Going beyond an existing contractual duty can be valid consideration
 
E.Scotson v Pegg
An existing duty owed to a third party is valid
 
F.Collins v Godfrey
An existing public duty is not valid
Consideration must move from the promisee

G.Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan

Going beyond a public duty is valid consideration
 
H.Williams v Roffey Bros
Obviating a disbenefit or conferring a practical benefit may constitute valid consideration
Going beyond an existing contractual duty can be valid consideration
 
I.Lampleigh v Braithwaite
Past consideration at promisor's request is valid
 
J.Chappell v Nestle
Consideration must be sufficient, but need not be adequate
 
K.Tweddle v Atkinson
Consideration must move from the promisee

10)Why was past consideration considered sufficient in Lampleigh v Braithwaite?

 
A.Because it would be unconscionable to deny the claimant payment
B.Because the claimant had gone beyond the duty
C.Because the claimant had conferred a benefit
D.Because the promisor had requested the performance 

11)For  an agreement to be binding something of value in the eyes of the law must be exchanged by each
party according to
 
A.Re McArdle
B.Chappell v Nestle 
C.Thomas v Thomas  
D.Foakes v Beer

12)Why did the court not follow Stilk v Myrrick in Hartley v Ponsonby?
 
A.Because the crew had gone beyond their existing duty 
B.Because the crew had performed the promise precisely
C.Because the crew were lucky
D.Because the crew had no contractual duty